MRI-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Under Local Anaesthesia – Patient-Reported and Biopsy Outcomes: A Single Centre Cohort Study
- Авторлар: Khairul-Asri M.G.1, Jaharudin M.A.1, Khor V.1, Yusof M.R.1, Sharin M.M.1, Jagwani A.1, Lee F.Y.1, Lee C.K.1, Fahmy O.1
-
Мекемелер:
- Universiti Putra Malaysia
- Шығарылым: № 4 (2024)
- Беттер: 87-92
- Бөлім: ORIGINAL ARTICLES
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/1728-2985/article/view/264906
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.18565/urology.2024.4.87-92
- ID: 264906
Дәйексөз келтіру
Ашық рұқсат
Рұқсат берілді
Тек жазылушылар үшін
Аннотация
Objective: To compare the tolerability and feasibility of transrectal (TR) versus transperineal (TP) routes for prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia (LA). To assess the functional outcome and the complication of both procedures.
Methods. A prospective cohort observational study was performed on patients who underwent prostate biopsy under LA. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used during the procedure. International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile dysfunction (IIEF) were assessed before the procedure and in 14 days after the procedure. Complication for each procedure was recorded.
Result. A total of 128 patients with 64 patients for each group underwent prostate biopsy by TP and TR under LA. TP targeted biopsy group had comparable pain scores to those who underwent the procedure using the TR routes. The median pain score for the TP group was 2 and TR was 3, (IQR=2, range 0–10 for both groups) with no significant pain difference between both groups (P=0.48). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in urinary function(p=0.68) and sexual function (p=0.19) between the two groups post-procedure. Both groups have similar rates of complications, with no significant difference observed. Urinary tract infection incidents that did occur were rare and did not significantly differ between the groups (p=0.21). None of the patients experienced sepsis postoperatively. AUR was reported in both groups, slightly higher with 9.4%(N=6) in the TP group and 6.3%(N=4) in the TR group however no significant difference(p=0.112) was noted. Haematuria is common in both groups with TP (66%) and TR (59%) but self-limiting with Clavien-Dindo grade I without significant difference (p=0.589).
Conclusion. Our results showed that both Transperineal and transrectal approaches have similar tolerability with no significant difference in functional outcome or complications. Further studies are mandatory to verify our results.
Негізгі сөздер
Толық мәтін
##article.viewOnOriginalSite##Авторлар туралы
M. Khairul-Asri
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Email: khairulasri@upm.edu.my
Consultant and Head of Department of Urology, Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Hospital
Малайзия, SerdangM. Jaharudin
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Хат алмасуға жауапты Автор.
Email: azrul.kkm@gmail.com
Urology Trainee, Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Hospital
Малайзия, SerdangV. Khor
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Email: khorweisheng@upm.edu.my
Urology Trainee, Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Hospital
Малайзия, SerdangM. Yusof
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Email: razaleigh@upm.edu.my
Urology Clinical Specialist, Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Hospital
Малайзия, SerdangM. F. Sharin
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Email: mfairuz.ms@upm.edu.my
Urology Clinical Specialist, Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Hospital
Малайзия, SerdangA. Jagwani
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Email: arvindvashdevj@upm.edu.my
Urology Clinical Specialist, Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Hospital
Малайзия, SerdangF. Lee
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Email: vuelve@upm.edu.my
Urology Clinical Specialist, Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Hospital
Малайзия, SerdangC. Lee
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Email: chriskslee2@gmail.com
Urology Consultant, Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Hospital
Малайзия, SerdangO. Fahmy
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Email: omarfahmy.ahmed@upm.edu.my
Urology Consultant, Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Hospital
Малайзия, SerdangӘдебиет тізімі
- Borghesi M., Ahmed H., Nam R., Schaeffer E., Schiavina R., Taneja S., Weidner W., Loeb S. Complications After Systematic, Random, and Image-guided Prostate Biopsy. Eur Urol. 2017;71(3):353–365. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.004.
- Carignan A., Roussy J-FJ-F, Lapointe V.V., et al. increasing risk of infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided pros- tate biopsies: time to reassess antimicrobial prophylaxis? Eur Urol. 2012;62:453–59.
- Kanagarajah A., Hogan D., Yao H.H., Dundee P., O’Connell H.E. A systematic review on the outcomes of local anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 2023;131(4):408–423.
- Grummet J., Gorin M.A., Popert R., O’Brien T., Lamb A.D., Hadaschik B., Radtke J.P., Wagenlehner F., Baco E., Moore C.M., Emberton M., George A.K., Davis J.W., Szabo R.J., Buckley R., Loblaw A., Allaway M., Kastner C., Briers E., Royce P.L., Frydenberg M., Murphy D.G., Woo H.H. «TREXIT 2020»: why the time to abandon transrectal prostate biopsy starts now. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23(1):62–65.
- Stefanova V., Buckley R., Flax S., Spevack L., Hajek D., Tunis A., Lai E., Loblaw A.; Collaborators. Transperineal Prostate Biopsies Using Local Anesthesia: Experience with 1,287 Patients. Prostate Cancer Detection Rate, Complications and Patient Tolerability. J Urol. 2019;201(6):1121–1126.
- Lundström K.J., Drevin L., Carlsson S., Garmo H., Loeb S., Stattin P., Bill-Axelson A. Nationwide population based study of infections after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2014;192(4):1116–22. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.098.
- Glaser A.P., Novakovic K., Helfand B.T. The Impact of Prostate Biopsy on Urinary Symptoms, Erectile Function, and Anxiety. Curr Urol Rep. 2012;13:447–454.
- Loeb S., Vellekoop A., Ahmed H.U., Catto J., Emberton M., Nam R., Rosario D.J., Scattoni V., Lotan Y. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876–92. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049.
- Tsivian M., Abern M.R., Qi P., Polascik T.J. Short-term functional outcomes and complications associated with transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy. Urology. 2013;82(1):166–70. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.071.
- Fainberg J., Gaffney C.D., Pierce H., Aboukhshaba A., Chughtai B., Christos P., Kashanian J.A. Erectile Dysfunction is a Transient Complication of Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AUA Journal. 2021;205:664–670.
- Murray K.S., Bailey J., Zuk K., Lopez-Corona E., Thrasher J.B. A prospective study of erectile function after transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 2015;116(2):190–95.
- Ber Y., Segal N., Tamir S., Benjaminov O., Yakimov M., Sela S., Halstauch D., Baniel J., Kedar D., Margel D. A noninferiority within-person study comparing the accuracy of transperineal to transrectal MRI-US fusion biopsy for prostate-cancer detection. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23(3):449–456.
- Hogan D., Kanagarajah A., Yao H.H., Wetherell D., Dias B., Dundee P., et al. Local versus general anesthesia transperineal prostate biopsy: Tolerability, cancer detection, and complications. BJUI Compass. 2021;2:428–435.
- Meyer A.R., Joice G.A., Schwen Z.R., et al. Initial experience performing in- office ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy under local anesthesia using the precisionpoint transperineal access system. Urology. 2018;115:8–13.
- Kum F., Elhage O., Maliyil J., Wong K., Faure Walker N., Kulkarni M., Namdarian B., Challacombe B., Cathcart P., Popert R. Initial outcomes of local anaesthetic freehand transperineal prostate biopsies in the outpatient setting. BJU Int. 2020;125(2):244–252.
- Gorin M.A., Meyer A.R., Zimmerman M., Harb R., Joice G.A., Schwen Z.R., Allaf M.E. Transperineal prostate biopsy with cognitive magnetic resonance imaging/biplanar ultrasound fusion: description of technique and early results. World J Urol. 2020;38(8):1943–1949.
- Carignan A., Roussy J-FJ-F, Lapointe V.V., et al. increasing risk of infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: time to reassess antimicrobial prophylaxis? Eur Urol. 2012;62:453–59.
Қосымша файлдар
